Some time ago, I watched Palace, which is a love drama that assumes that South Korea is a constitutional monarchy and tells the story of modern Cinderella. I don't know if it was influenced by the military coup in Thailand. It suddenly occurred to me, what would happen if China became a constitutional monarchy? First of all, what is "constitutional monarchy"? The so-called "constitutional monarchy" means that capitalist countries put monarchs (kings, emperors, etc.). As the head of state, its power is restricted by the constitution and parliament to varying degrees. It is the product of the bourgeois and feudal forces sharing power and compromising each other. Its forms are parliamentary constitutional monarchy and dual constitutional monarchy. Parliamentary constitutional monarchy, like Britain or Thailand, the parliament is the highest legislative body of the country, and the monarch is a symbolic head of state, whose duties are mostly ceremonial. From the legal point of view, the king seems to be the supreme ruler, but in fact he is a figure who "faces North Korea and does not pay attention to politics". But in dealing with some important affairs, the king still has a discordant and neglected role, such as prestige, such as people's admiration and respect. Dual constitutional monarchy, such as Morocco and Nepal, is a hereditary monarch and head of state with real power. The monarch appoints cabinet members, the government is responsible to the monarch, and the parliament exercises legislative power but the monarch has veto power. Japan was a typical "constitutional monarchy" from Meiji Restoration to World War II. The emperor has the supreme power, that is, the head of state and the supreme commander of the army, and has the right to declare war, contract, appoint and dismiss senior civil and military officials, dissolve and convene parliament. Cabinet ministers are directly responsible to the emperor rather than the parliament. So now it seems that China does not have the prerequisite to become a "constitutional monarchy" country, because in the modern history of China, it jumped directly from the feudal society to the socialist society, just like being induced to die and skipping the capitalist society. * * * There is absolutely no "emperor" who exploited the people and the privileged class. So, what now? It is better to put aside all external factors and practical factors. Suppose it is socialism now, but the "emperor" is still there and the royal family still lives in the Forbidden City. What will happen? Will the royal family be respected as a common people and regarded as a spiritual pillar or national symbol in more than 30 countries where constitutional monarchy still exists, and the emperor will still have considerable prestige, and the royal family will be envied and admired by the general public? Or will the emperor become a puppet, mascot, trademark or even an exhibit in socialist countries? It's really hard to imagine . . Maybe this is the reason why the so-called extremes meet. China has had an "emperor" for so long that when the "emperor" was overthrown, it was completely finished, not earth-shaking, but changed the world. How incredible, the feudal thought of 5,000 years can't be eradicated, and it still has a potential influence on a generation, but China people have eliminated the "emperor" from their bones. I laugh when you say "emperor". However, since then, there has been no spiritual symbol and national prestige.